HSI 2011 Yokohama, Japan, May 19-21, 2011

Performance analysis of 3 DOF Delta parallel

robot
Sergiu-Dan Stan1, Milos Manic2, Cristian Szep1 and Radu Balan1
1
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, European Union,
2
University of Idaho, Idaho Falls, USA,
sergiustan@ieee.org, misko@uidaho.edu, szep_crysty84@yahoo.com, radubalan@yahoo.com

 performance measure of the 3DOF Delta parallel robot.

Abstract. Parallel robots have inherent advantages for
many applications in the fields of robotics. They offer high
dynamic capabilities combined with high accuracy and
stiffness. There are a lot of performance criteria which have
to be taken into account and which are pose dependent. The
main idea of this paper is to present the fundamentals for a
performance evaluation of the 3 DOF Delta parallel robot.
Therefore we discuss a large number of performance criteria
dealing with workspace, quality transmission, manipulability,
dexterity and stiffness.
Keywords: performance analysis, Delta parallel robot,
3DOF, workspace, kinematics.
Secondly, the dimensioning of the 3 DOF parallel robot of
type DELTA with revolute actuators for the largest
workspace, best stiffness and transmission quality is
presented. The results shown in this paper demonstrate a
novel approach that improves the workspace performances.
Section II describes the 3DOF parallel robot. The third
section introduces the performance evaluation indexes
under mathematical form. The fourth section presents the
performance evaluation results, while the final, fifth section
concludes this paper.

II. 3 DOF DELTA PARALLEL ROBOT

I. INTRODUCTION Parallel robots with 3 degrees-of-freedom are parallel

V ARIOUS performance analyses for parallel robots manipulators comprising a fixed base platform and a
payload platform linked together by three independent,
have been proposed in the literature. Early
identical, and open kinematic chains (Fig. 1).
investigations of robot workspace were reported by Merlet
The DELTA parallel robot consists of a spatial parallel
[2], Kumar and Waldron [3], Tsai and Soni [4], Gupta [1]
structure with three degrees of freedom, and is driven by
and Roth [5], Sugimoto and Duffy [6], Gupta [7], and
three revolute actuators. The platform is connected with
Davidson and Hunt [8]. The consideration of joint limits in
each drive by two links forming a parallelogram, allowing
the study of the robot workspaces was presented by Delmas
only translational movements of the platform and keeping
and Bidard (1995). Other works that have dealt with robot
the platform parallel to the base plane.
workspace are reported by Agrawal [9], Gosselin and
Angeles [10], Cecarelli [11]. Various numerical methods
for determination of the workspace of parallel robots have
been developed in the recent years. For example, Stan [14]
presented a genetic algorithm approach for multi-criteria
optimization of PKM (Parallel Kinematics Machines).
The majority of numerical methods used for parallel
manipulator workspace boundary determination typically
rely on manipulator’s pose parameter discretization. [15,
16]. With the discretization approach, the workspace is
envisioned as the uniform grid of nodes in Cartesian or
polar coordinate system. Each node is then examined in
order to determine whether it belongs to the workspace or
not.
The paper presents several contributions. First, the paper
introduces some evaluation index metrics as the

Financial support for this work was supported by the UEFISCDI under
Grant no. 72-197/1.10.2010.
Dr. Sergiu-Dan Stan is with the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,
Dept. of Mechatronics, 103-105, B-dul Muncii, 400641, Cluj-Napoca,
Fig. 1. Delta parallel robot with 3 degrees-of-freedom
Romania (+40-264-401755; e-mail: sergiustan@ieee.org). Email contacts (CAD model)
of other authors are: misko@ieee.org, szep_crysty84@yahoo.com and
radubalan@yahoo.com.
A. Mathematical model 2ll1 2 Ll1
b1  2 yl1   (2)
To analyze the kinematic model of the parallel robot, two 3 3
relative coordinate frames are assigned, as shown in Fig.
2c).
c1  2zl1 (3)
 
Where a1 , b1 and c1 variables will be used in final
equation that will solve q1 angle, the angle from the first
link motor. For q1 angle appears to be two solutions:

 a1 
q1   a tan(c1 , b1 )  a cos  (4)
 b2 c2 
 1 1 
a)  b) 
 a1 
q1  a tan(c1 , b1 )  a cos  (5)
 b2 c2 
 1 1 

c) 
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of DELTA parallel robot;
a) and b) mobile and fixed platform for DELTA parallel
robot; c) kinematic scheme of DELTA parallel robot

TABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS.

Construction Li, Ri, li, ri, qi, i = 1…3 in
parameters [mm]
Parameterizatio AiBi=R1; BiCi=L1; CiDi=l1;
n DiEi=r1;

A static Cartesian coordinate frame XYZ is fixed at the

center of the base, while a mobile Cartesian coordinate
frame XPYPZP is assigned to the center of the mobile
platform. Bi, i = 1, 2, 3, and Di, i = 1, 2, 3, are: the joints
located at the center of the base, as presented in Fig. 2 a)
and b), and the platform passive joints, respectively.
B. Inverse Kinematics Problem of 3DOF Delta parallel
robot
Inverse kinematics problem results from determination of
angle values qi (i  1,2,3) when the position of the
characteristic point or the final effector (TCP – Tool Centre
Point), respective the general coordinates: x p , y p , z p .
For the solution of q1 angle the next equations will be
used:
2 yl 2 yL l 2 2lL L2
  l1  l2 (1)
2 2
a1  x 2  y 2  z 2    
3 3 3 3 3
Fig. 3. Representation of the two solutions for the first
motor link of Delta parallel robot (4) and (5)
As it can be observed are admitted two solutions for two
possible position solutions for the first motor link. From
these two solutions it will be chosen the first solution
because with this one the result of the equation is the
correct value for our angle. The same procedure will be
applied to compute next two angles of the other two motor
links.
In conclusion, equations q1 , q 2 , q3  represent the
analytic solutions for inverse kinematic models of Delta
parallel robot.
For the implementation and resolution of forward and
inverse kinematic problems of a parallel robot, a MATLAB
environment was chosen. This is where a user friendly
graphical user interface was developed, as well (Fig.4).
HSI 2011
Fig. 4. Graphical User Interface for IKP and workspace determination of 3 DOF Delta parallel robot
III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In this paper, the local value of manipulability, dexterity,
stiffness and transmission quality index are defined as
measure to evaluate the performance of the 3DOF Delta
parallel robot. Another contribution is the determination of
the workspace by means of discretization method in
Matlab.
In addition to important design criterion such as the
workspace, another important criterion, transmission
quality index, has been considered. The transmission
quality index, T, couples velocity and force transmission
properties of a parallel robot, i.e. power features [14]. Its
definition is:
2
I
T (6)
J  J 1
where I is the unity matrix, and J is Jacobian matrix.
The values transmission quality index, T, are within a
range 0<T<1, where T=0 characterizes a singular pose and
T=1 characterizes an optimal value, therefore reflecting the
isotropy of the system [14]. Here J is calculated as:
  1 industrial application and given parameters, it is very
J  tr J T wJ ; w  I (7)
n workspace. Calculation of the workspace and its
where n is the dimension of the Jacobian matrix, and I the n
x n identity matrix.
The manipulability condition number is a quality number
in the sense of Yoshikawa, can be defined in terms of the
ratio of a measure of performance in the task space and a
measure of effort in the joint space.
Yokohama, Japan, May 19-21, 2011
M  det( J  J T (8)
If J is quadratic. Eq. (8) reduces to M=det(J). The goal is
to have a value of M as large as possible.
The stiffness condition number runs using the matrix K:
S  K 1  K  J  J T  ( J  J T ) 1 (9)
If the guiding chains of the machine between frame and
working platform have different stiffness, the matrix K
must be replaced by the matrix:
K C  ( J T ) 1  C  J 1 (10)
where the diagonal matrix C contains the stiffness of the
single guiding chain. The reciprocal value of S is
between 0  1 / S  1 ; a singular pose is again
characterized by 1 / S  0 , whereas 1 / S  1 is the optimal
(isotropic) index.
C. Workspace evaluation
In this section, the workspace of the proposed robot will
be discussed in details. For a robot in the context of
important to analyze the area and the shape of its
boundaries with perfect precision is crucial, because they
influence the dimensional design, the manipulator’s
positioning in the work environment, and its dexterity to
execute tasks.
The workspace is limited by several conditions. The
prime limitation is the boundary obtained through solving
inverse kinematics. Further, the workspace is limited by the
reachable extent of drives and joints, then by the occurrence Figures 7 & 8 demonstrate better performances in terms
of singularities, and finally by the link and platform of transmission quality of the DELTA parallel robot in the
collisions. The parallel robot DELTA linear realizes a wide central part of the workspace approaching to the isotropic
workspace, as presented in Fig. 6. Analysis, i.e. configuration.
visualization of the workspace is an important aspect of
Calitatea de transmitere
performance analysis. In order to generate a reachable
workspace of parallel manipulators, a numerical algorithm 0.9

was introduced. For the sake of simplicity, other design 0.85

specific factors such as the end-effector size, drive volumes 1

0.8

have been ignored. The following figures visualize the 3D 0.9

0.75
robot workspace (Fig. 5). 0.8
0.7
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.6
0.5

0.4 0.55
0
0 0.5
20 20
0.45
40 40
60 60

Fig. 7. Transmission quality index for DELTA 3 DOF

parallel robot, section through Z-plane, height 333mm.

Calitatea de transmitere
0.9

45 0
00. .5.52
0. 564321 1 0.85
0.0.6605 53357

0.
58
40 0.69060.71 0.664 27 89

47
01. 78 698 2407 0.8

1
2194
6 00. .77532 42
Fig. 5. Workspace for the DELTA 3 DOF parallel robot. 35 73
0.75432 00.80.77975431946
0.8 .8 1 6 2
8
0.775 0.88610 043878685
0.75
0. 4
17
0.6257 81
48097
0.5 1 17

68 5
2
0..66084 7

0.
0.817.796
2
71
30 4 2 6
2

02
0.5

9
0
0.838
0. 0.7
0

Ideally it’s preferred those criteria to be like:

2
0.5
0.542

1 78
75 3
25

6
0.6

88
0.669

86
63 35

0. 86 88122

0. 7
0.71
0. 0.65

83
00.04
53

73
9042

4
transmission quality index  T=1 the best value 7 68 54 1

0.
209.7 0
1. 0.81
6

20 654 1.7750.7965 7
4 32 09. 6 24
94 2 7 0.6
2
0.711 780.7
3 6 48 0
6
and the maximum one; 15 0.690 6 0.0..662754897513
0 60 8 3 35
2. workspace  a higher value is desirable; 10
0.0..55642
0 .5
0
0.55

stiffness index  a higher value is desirable; 0.5 211 7

3. 0.5

manipulability index  a higher value is

5
4. 0.45
desirable. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

Fig. 8. Transmission quality index for DELTA 3 DOF
In the following figures, the performances evaluation parallel robot, section through Z-plane, height 333mm.
throughout the workspace of the 3 DOF DELTA parallel
robot is presented. When a robot architecture admits a condition number
60
Spatiul de lucru
equal to one, it is called an isotropic architecture, based on
the isotropy of its relative Jacobian matrix.
50
Stiffness is one of the most important performances of
parallel mechanisms, particularly for those which are used
40
as machine tools, because higher stiffness allows higher
machining speeds with higher accuracy of the end-effector.
Pozitia pe Y (m)

30 Therefore, it is necessary to perform the stiffness modeling,

as well as the evaluation of the parallel robot in the early
20 design stage.
With regards to stiffness evaluation, several different
10 performance indices have been proposed and utilized in the
literatures.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
A simple way to predict the stiffness is to use the
Pozitia pe X (m) interested stiffness factors, i.e., the terms of the stiffness
Fig. 6. Workspace for the DELTA 3 DOF parallel robot, matrix [14]. Figures 9 & 10 demonstrate better
section through Z-plane, height 333mm. performances in terms of stiffness of the DELTA parallel
robot in the central part of the workspace.
 Rigiditatea Conditia matricei Jacobi J
2.4
0.8
2.5 2.2
1 0.7

0.8 2
2
0.6
0.6
1.8

0.4 0.5
1.5
1.6
0.2
0.4

0 1.4
0 1
0 0.3 60
20 20 40 0
10 1.2
40 40 0.2 20 20
30
40
60 60 0 50

Fig. 9. Stiffness index for DELTA 3 DOF parallel robot,

section through Z-plane, height 333mm. Fig. 12. Condition number of Jacobian matrix index for
DELTA 3 DOF parallel robot, section through Z-plane,
Rigiditatea height 333mm.
0.25752 0.8
45 00. .2
0. 31845 It is well known that the numerical stability of the
3 287
0. 0.3

0.484 00.42 70 9 3
34 99

40
0.51272 0 37 .457 6 4 0.7
mapping from end-effector velocity to joint velocity is
25 3
9

08 0 .5 6 05
414947 79 0 .5641 1
35 0 0. 5
6 9. 5 0.06..66526 19 4048 closely related to the kinematic performance of a robot.
5 8 2 4 5
0.

0. 0.739 865
65
00.4.3790 94

0.
279 3

57
0.51

767 93
0.71122 5

59

0.6
51

This mapping is described by the so-called Jacobian matrix.

77
0.65. 6426

30
64
0.3

2
9
0.682

72
0.824
0

37

Thus, closely relating the kinematic performance of a

0.2
0.385
0.314 87

29 2
0.484

25 96 1 2 6
0.4
0. 456

0.7 0.5
42 23

86

0. 73 1 8
08. 4 01

0. 0 9 57 793 0.7682 7 794

0.76 robot to the numerical condition of its Jacobian matrix. The
59

54 .5
5137

100.597 7 0.5 9 9 4
27

20 0.654 0.5.56
869 49 0.62615 1
performance of the robot is better, when the condition
2

4 008 6 065
.541 2 45 7
93

00.512 7 00..42 0 9459 0.4

39

15 0.48437
37 42 2 7
3 number is smaller.
0.

0.0.331845 8
10 00. .2
0.3
Manevrabilitatea -8
5 x 10

-3.5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -8
x 10

-3.3 -3.55
Fig. 10. Stiffness index for DELTA 3 DOF parallel robot,
section through Z-plane, height 333mm. -3.4
-3.6
-3.5
Furthermore, similar to the condition number of Jacobian -3.6 -3.65
matrix, the condition number of the stiffness matrix was
introduced (Fig.9 & 10). Accuracy of the control of the -3.7
-3.7
robot is dependent on the condition number of the Jacobian -3.8
0
matrix. 0
-3.75
20 20
40 40
Conditia matricei Jacobi
60 60
1.9663
45 1.
11..8.7.46.96379 9 3

80 2.2
915 5 0 25 7
1 1 1 .5 6

06
Fig. 13. Manipulability index for DELTA 3 DOF parallel
1519 4

40 1.
1.41 52
1 1. 4

1.3589 41 4
1. 30
36
5
robot, section through Z-plane, height 333mm.
35 84 1 2
1.24 .193
1. 4 1

2
36
5 64
.70401

1. 358 9.41

8
11.811

3
30

1
1.
1

30
1.9

Quite all the performance criteria that are in use are

1.2493 2

1.8
1. 3 8 4
1. .57 469 11. .35083 6
74 9 3 414 9
1.1 8

referred to the Jacobian matrix and to the condition number.

1.15.9603 2
1.8
1.6 5 9

1.1

25
13
17.59 57
1.424

1.
5

93

1.2
695

The evaluation of the parallel robots is the key issue for an

2

48
3

20
1.3403 1.6
1. 3568 9 45
52 efficient use of parallel robots. This is a complex and hard
1. 5 7

1. 6350 2
1 1.

15 1.414 1
11
91 4

1 9 69
. 6
1. .880505
11. 1.4 task. In the paper was presented a framework for the
10
1.911 1 performance evaluation considering basic characteristics
5
1.2 of:
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45  workspace;
 stiffness;
Fig. 11. Condition number of Jacobian matrix index for  isotropy;
DELTA 3 DOF parallel robot, section through Z-plane,  manipulability.
height 333mm. This can be useful for future optimal synthesis of 3DOF
Delta parallel robot.
 Manevrabilitatea -8
x 10
[9] SK. Agrawal, “Workspace boundaries of in-parallel manipulator
-3.5 systems”. Int. J. Robotics Automat 1990, 6(3) 281-290.
-3-3 .6
45 .645
37-3
0-3
[10] C. Gosselin, Angeles J. “Singularities analysis of closed loop
8.6e.668

008
e- - 06e9-0 kinematic chains”.IEEE-T.Robotics Automat 1990; 6(3) 281-290.
-3 .62 0008e-00808
8 e- 008
76

22e-
40 8 -3.61 46e- 008 -3.55
0 80 8
00 -3.6015e-008 e-008 [11] M. Cecarelli, “A synthesis algorithm for three-revolute manipulators
e-e0- 0e- -3.5884 e- 008
059282.953 6 .57 53008

-3 .56
35 .5
-3 -3 . -3 -3
e-
by using an algebraic formulation of workspace boundary”. ASME J.
-3 .5491e-0 22 Mech. Des. 1995; 117(2(A)): 298-302.
-3 .
-3 .66 6

-3 .56 22 08 .56 -3.6

60
e- 008 -3
[12] S. K. Agrawal. “Workspace boundaries of in-parallel manipulator
8
08
- 00008
30

-3 .52 53 6e1e- 0
08
15
8
e-00

08
-3 .6124766ee--0
9e-008

e- 0

08
.6543087e0

systems”. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation,

e- 0
-3 .68 e-

-0

-3 ..54 9
-3

29e-0 - 0 0
3e e- 008
08

25
84

5
57.56 22 -3.65 7(2):94–99, 1991.
58

.-3
-3.6
3 ..6

-3 -3.5491e-00-8 -3 .
--3
-3

0808 8
-3 3 .5 5 [13] F. Pernkopf and M. Husty, ”Reachable Workspace and

-3 .56
20 .52 3 -3 .57 6 22e
296e-
e- 00 -3.
22e-
00 8 -3.6015e-008
15 8 -3.614
-3.6 .6 276
-3.65 3689ee-0 -0008
008 -3
10
-3-3
5 Abmessungen von Werkzeugmaschinen mit Parallelstruktur,
5 10 15 20 25 30
Fig. 14. Manipulability index for DELTA 3 DOF parallel
robot, section through Z-plane, height 333mm.
V. CONCLUSION
The assessment based on manipulability, transmission
quality, stiffness, dexterity and workspace are defined to
evaluate the performance of the 3DOF Delta parallel robot.
The evaluation measures consist of the local
manipulability, local transmission quality, local stiffness
and local dexterity. The evaluation measures can be used as
the constraint criteria for future optimal synthesis of 3DOF
Delta parallel robot. The goal of the future optimization
will be to determine the dimensions and initial posture of
the 3 DOF Delta parallel robot that has the largest
workspace and isotropy status of performance. In the
future, it can be solved optimization for enlarging the
height of the workspace or for the optimal global
manipulability, global dexterity, global transmission
quality, global stiffness with expected workspace.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was financially supported by CNMP
through the grants no. 3280 (PARTENERIATE type), title
of the project ‘Complex mechatronics systems for medical
applications’.
REFERENCES
[1] Gupta, A., et al., “Design, Control and Performance of RiceWrist: A
Force Feedback Wrist Exoskeleton for Rehabilitation and Training”,
The Int. J. of Robotics Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 233-251 (2008).
[2] J. P. Merlet. “Determination of the orientation workspace of parallel
manipulators”. Journal of intelligent and robotic systems,
13:143–160, 1995.
[3] A. Kumar, KJ. Waldron. “The workspace of mechanical
manipulators”. ASME J. Mech. Des. 1981; 103:665-672.
[4] YC. Tsai, AH. Soni. “Accessible region and synthesis of robot arm”.
ASME J. Mech Des. 1981, 103: 803-811.
[5] KG. Gupta, Roth B., “Design considerations for manipulator
workspace”. ASME J. Mech. Des. 1982, 104(4), 704-711.
[6] K. Sugimoto, Duffy J, Hunt KH, “Special configurations of spatial
mechanisms and robot arms”. Mech Mach Theory 1982, 117(2);
119-132.
[7] KC. Gupta. “On the nature of robot workspaces”, Int. J. Rob. Res.
1986; 5(2): 112-121
[8] JK. Davidson, KH. Hunt, “Rigid body location and robot workspace:
some alternative manipulator forms”. ASME J. Mech. Transmissions
Automat Des 1987, 109(2); 224-232.
53e 0- 00
58 84-e-0 088
08 Manufacturing Errors of Stewart-Gough Manipulators”, Proc. of
6e-008 -3.7
40 7e
e
e-0 8
-00088
-0 MUSME 2005, the Int. Sym. on Multibody Systems and Mechatronics
6
.6 .6 8
Brazil, 2005, p. 293-304.
-3.75 [14] S. Stan, Diplomarbeit, Analyse und Optimierung der strukturellen
IWF-TU Braunschweig, 2003, Germany.
35 40 45
[15] K. Cleary and T. Arai. “A prototype parallel manipulator:
Kinematics, construction, software, workspace results, and
singularity analysis”. In Proceedings of International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pages 566–571, Sacramento, California,
April 1991.
[16] M. Ceccarelli, G. Carbone, E. Ottaviano, “An Optimization Problem
Approach For Designing Both Serial And Parallel Manipulators”,
Proc. of MUSME 2005, the Int. Sym. on Multibody Systems and
Mechatronics Uberlandia, Brazil, 6-9 March 2005
[17] M. Ceccarelli, Fundamentals of Mechanics of Robotic Manipulation,
Dordrecht, Kluwer/Springer, 2004.
[18] G. Gogu, “Evolutionary morphology: a structured approach to.
inventive engineering design”, 5th. International Conference.
IDMME 2004, France.
[19] Verdes Dan, Sergiu-Dan Stan, Milos Manic, Radu Balan,
Mechatronic design, kinematics analysis of a 3 DOF medical parallel
robot, IEEE-ISRCS’10, the 3rd IEEE Symposium on Resilience
Control Systems, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA, Aug. 10-12, 2010.
[20] Rad, C.-R.; Manic, M.; Balan, R.; Stan, S.-D.; Real time
evaluation of inverse kinematics for a 3-RPS medical parallel robot
usind dSpace platform, 2010 3rd Conference on Human System
Interactions (IEEE-HSI 2010), 13-15 May 2010, page(s): 48 - 53,
Rzeszow, Poland, ISBN: 978-1-4244-7560-5, Digital Object
Identifier: 10.1109/HSI.2010.5514590
[21] Nadia Rat, Mircea Neagoe, Dorin Diaconesc, Sergiu-Dan Stan, Radu
Balan, Dynamic Modeling and VR Simulation of 3DOF Medical
Parallel robots, M. Iskander et al. (eds.), Technological
Developments in Education and Automation, DOI
10.1007/978-90-481-3656-8_55, pag. 297-302.© Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg 2010.
[22] Stan, S.-D., Gogu, G., Manic, M., Balan, R., Rad, C., Fuzzy Control
of a 3 Degree of Freedom Parallel Robot, M. Iskander et al. (eds.),
Technological Developments in Education and Automation, DOI
10.1007/978-90-481-3656-8_55, pag. 437-442 © Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, ISBN 978-90-481-3655-1 (Print)
978-90-481-3656-8 (Online), 2010.
[23] Nadia Ramona Raţ, Mircea Neagoe, Sergiu-Dan Stan, Comparative
dynamic analysis of two parallel robots, Solid State Phenomena
Vols. 166-167 (2010) pp 345-356 (2010) Trans Tech Publications,
Switzerland doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.166-167.345.
[24] Mircea Coman, Sergiu-Dan Stan, Milos Manic, Radu Balan,
Application of Distance Measuring with Matlab/Simulink,
IEEE-HSI 2010, the 3rd International Conference on Human System
Interaction, Rzeszow, Poland, May 13-15, 2010, ISBN:
978-1-4244-7560-5.
[25] Khaled ASSAD ARROUK, Belhassen CHEDLI BOUZGARROU,
Sergiu-Dan STAN, Grigore GOGU, CAD Based Design
Optimization of Planar Parallel Manipulators, Solid State
Phenomena Vols. 166-167 (2010) pp 33-38 © (2010) Trans Tech
Publications, Switzerland,
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.166-167.33.
[26] Szep, C. Stan, S.-D. Csibi, V. Manic, M. Balan, R. , Kinematics,
workspace, design and accuracy analysis of RPRPR medical parallel
robot, IEEE- HSI '09. 2nd Conference on Human System
Interactions, 2009, 21-23 May 2009 Catania, page(s): 75-80, ISBN:
978-1-4244-3959-1, Digital Object Identifier:
10.1109/HSI.2009.5090957.